Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More and more it is coming down to the defining of words within the Constitution, in this case "person", in which the courts seem to be taking the Constitutions Preamble into consideration where in it states "to ourselves and our posterity" to mean just that, only for citizens or those with the consent of our government to be here; as it should be.
More and more it is coming down to the defining of words within the Constitution, in this case "person", in which the courts seem to be taking the Constitutions Preamble into consideration where in it states "to ourselves and our posterity" to mean just that, only for citizens or those with the consent of our government to be here; as it should be.
Excellent start! Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel afterall. Anyone with common sense would know that when "persons or people" are referenced in our Constitution that it means citizens or those authorized to be here.
More and more it is coming down to the defining of words within the Constitution, in this case "person", in which the courts seem to be taking the Constitutions Preamble into consideration where in it states "to ourselves and our posterity" to mean just that, only for citizens or those with the consent of our government to be here; as it should be.
The problem arises when you assume that some Amerians are not citizens and you violate their rights of American citizens to determine if they are citizens
The problem arises when you assume that some Ameri(c)ans {sic} are not citizens and you violate the {sic} rights of American citizens to determine if they are citizens
Accept for the fact that once an illegal alien is identified they no longer fall within the protections of the 4th Amendment.
You may be referring to a citizen harboring/living with an illegal, thus the citizens right is jeopardized by themselves.
More and more it is coming down to the defining of words within the Constitution, in this case "person", in which the courts seem to be taking the Constitutions Preamble into consideration where in it states "to ourselves and our posterity" to mean just that, only for citizens or those with the consent of our government to be here; as it should be.
That is a common sense approach. If we would have it the other way everyone in the world who is a non citizen would have our rights.
And Merry Christmas to all you fine folks. One small step, sometimes leads to a huge jump. We have to start somewhere. A little news even if it seems to little too late, is better then no news on this issue at all.
The problem arises when you assume that some Amerians are not citizens and you violate their rights of American citizens to determine if they are citizens
Asking for an I.D is not a violation of anyones civil rights. So you would rather anyone from any part of the globe be able to just come in and wander about? Might as well give up on having a country of your own. A country without borders is no longer a country.
Asking for an I.D is not a violation of anyones civil rights. .
It's a violation of someones Constitutional rights
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotleyCrew
So you would rather anyone from any part of the globe be able to just come in and wander about? Might as well give up on having a country of your own. .
I'd rather protect the Constitution of the United States. I'm not falling for the "we have to suspend your rights to keep you safe" argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.